Allowed

Prem Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2022BAIL/42699/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to the applicant Prem Yadav in a Case Crime involving possession of ganja under the NDPS Act. The court noted the lack of public recovery witnesses, the co-accused's prior bail, and granted release after personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties with conditions against tampering and harassment.

Prem Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42699 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Prem Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nagendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Nagendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Luxman Prasad, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶6

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Prem Yadav in Case Crime No. 109 of 2022, under Section 8/20 NDPS Act,Police Station Nebua Naurangiya,District Kushinagar.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The police has allegedly recovered 51 kg ganja from joint possession of four persons including the applicant. There is no public witness of the recovery. It is averred that the applicant is a poor person and has no criminal antecedent to his credit. It is submitted that co-accused, Ashok Chaudhary, similarly circumstanced as the applicant, has already been enlarged on bail by another co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 22.07.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30088 of 2022, entitling the applicant to be released on bail on the ground of parity. It is in the last submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.04.2022 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not deny the averments made by the accused-applicant.

¶9

In view of arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the provisions of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of N.D.P.S. Act, nature of supporting evidence, the fact that co-accused Ashok Chaudhary has already been enlarged on bail, reasonable apprehension of tampering the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charges, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released

¶10

on bail.

¶11

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant, Prem Yadav, involved in the aforementioned case be released on bail on executing his personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶14

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶15

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶16

iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶17

v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before the Court concerned.

¶19

Order Date :- 13.12.2022 Pratima

¶20

Digitally signed by PRATIMA AGRAHARI Date: 2022.12.13 16:53:20 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prem Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharik Malik Vs State of U.P.

Vipin Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Bhura @ Deep Singh Vs State of U.P.

Pramendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rambhan Singh @ Nanhe Vs State of U.P.

Digamber Singh and Others Vs State of U.P.